20140626 TZHC Dar es Salaam

r •..i ~~; . "~ ~~ :~~1~ ~ '• .t ·J ... ·, ·i\, .. : ;,~::; · ..ti~- }~. '\¥i... . ,. .. ..i.-.· ,-~ . 1.ir. f,,1, :N THE HIGH COURT Of.,TANZANIA ·. .{t'AR ES SALAAM DISTRI.CT RE~I~TRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM · I ·:j; czvx.. REVISION N(i4.!I OF ioH (fro~the ruling and orders of the Ki~'dndoni' District Court · .: .. . . .:- th :.1•.in Misc. Civil Applicati~n No.-.ig of ~010 dated ·18 August 2011) ;~t: (Rutehangwa, R~) .,. '~- . JOHN ~10RGE MJ',i..LYA ........................................... :......... APPLICAN°T.' ' ~· . · . Versus .. • .. l . . ~OSE~i ....::':NJAM::'.:N ............................ :...·.............................. RESPONDENT Dates of/1 Older: Date of,71:g: ~7/05/2014 26/06/2014 ~C; ~ \;. RULING !k. ..; -~\l 'Tu:.raJlt.. f :.J. • . J0~N Gj2RGE MALLYA ("the applicant'')' has filed the present application { . seeking J{,oi orders revising the proceedings, ruling and order of the · Kinonc;=.t 1District Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 29 of 2011. . . :i . The a~::fiation has been brought under section 43 (2) and 44 (1) (a) and (b) of .tti~ Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 11 (R.E. 2002) and sections 79 (1) and g~ {: ::he Civil ?rccedure Code, Cap 33 (R.E. 2002). It is supported by I the ~::~:}f.ant's ow:, zffidavit. MOSES BENJAMIN ("the respondent'') resists the app:tatton and has filed a counter affidavit. '- r· . ~: . : By cons.~r.t, I ordeied that the

application be argued by way of written . ' . ,t· · . •sub!'nlss:~ns, which were duly filed byMr. Ezekiel Kihali from Exor Attorneys ' 1 . ·t . ,. 3/From Offioe/Judi~~/John Mallya v Moses Benjamin (Rg June 2014) . )l, . ?.'', i! :~ . ';f' ~,, '. ~ '1 .... : .. \ .. • . • and ·Mr.. Cobus · fromthe Professional Centre, learnec :'dvo~~~tesfor the applicant and, the resp~ndent respe~tively. . ... .:I · : In their submissions} ·cour1se1: have explored an exp3n~-ive te,) ri cf !2;c:i ~ • ·: and fa_~tLi~I issues _ari~i-ng from this admitted:y lc)'lg-outs::;:ndl dispute;,,·._\) ·This is probably due to muJtipl~ proceedings t:--.z.~ ~,a Jisp~-~-:~s so far · , · ·gone through. Counsel mu~t h~ve :thought it necessa::1 tc :jd:t aU the~e: · . issues, in order to ~~.sure th~t n~ s·tone. is left ur1~cm2c~ f:,·e~:➔:l:,.'.1'.i!i-1g their .. . . client's respective positions on those issues.' . . ,. ·. , ·i:f?wever, ~ithout in any way belittling counsel's c:rn:?1e1:c_:;.~;?. ii: Jhe . work completeness of their submissions, I think, with ;·es~e:t, tt~t ,,~ ~it~jr can be disposed of by dernrmining only one :ssut!, w:',::Ch \. :·~~2 most :· •. · :, crucial one arising from the application. · . ·. The issue is more specifi :ally set out in the rr~::p::r~.:::f~k· cou~.;e!•'s submissions as issue No. 1, butwould need to be ~!..:rlher 2mp:L··~:·a }n crcer . 1, . to reflect the broad picture. It would

then run as f.::·:.:ows: ·.· "Whether it was leg aHy proper for the D:st:;;:~ Coen: cf !<f ·ndoni to grant extension of time within which to appeq~ ~;JL~s~ -~~= \~2::s:on J: ,. of the Kawe Primary Court, given the .District Cou:1:'$ dee!..· ~~:i . in Civil ; th Appeal No. 23 of 200S dated 8 September 20C5." This issue arises from facts set out in the applicant's affido'•i'.• .::,)·:::'.1· ?.re . supported by various Court documents (proceed;~gs znd cecis .. ;ns)'. ~n his . counter affidavit, the Respondent does not substen~iJHy di~ \.ite· -thesa facts, except for their interpretation and effect, which is the , ...st:o:i th!$ • Court is called upon to determine in the instant cas·~. ·· J ' Civil Application No. 23 of :mos was an ap·peal as.a'..n.,st ti~~- del_·<pr: of ·~he Kawe Primary Court in Civil Case No. 67 of 2004-c!·~!verzc'.<m 1 Fe!Jruary ~i 2005. The ruling o~ the District Court (Kab~·;:a~ sm~:, :n W_t cc:se just mentioned, delivered on 8th September 2005, de:t.:ad ~-:;·fo~ow<f ' · · ·: .' 3/From Office/Judiciary/John Mallya v Moses Benjamin (Rg June ~014) 2 Ii,, · .. : Dlatter before me concern, land· dispute.· its :.evide.nce. that u,.. er _the :aw, land dispute settlement Act No~ ·2/2002 this _co'urt has n •- jur:sdictk>.n to entertain any appeal _on matt.ers of land .ori.ginating fr. m. Primary Court... The proper forum is tlie District Land and . H .Lsing

Tr!.bunal.' The appellant; ~~- advis~d t~ follow the proper ~c, :i:n~ ·.Th~ appeal. is therefore str.uck ·, . out . ·. .. '~· . . . . . Si~ yet.'r_:.late( ir..August 2010,. the respbndent Went back to the' same Dis.frict '-f~u~ ·a~ fl:ed an application for ·exten~ion of time (Misc. Cfvn. ·App:ii:::ttr ·.Np" 1e2 of 2010) to appeal against the _same decision of.K~we · Prim~:-:','·j~cu:.t (C:ecision dated 25 th February 2005 in Civil Case No. 67 of · 2C0(,)-. ~t,, .c: ._r;;/:!ig c_eiivered o_n ~8 th Augl,Jst 20.11, the District Court (Ru;e~:,,J·~•'.'.~' ::? ,.f ?:'ed the_ appli~tion; reasoni~g that there were rr.=:b.~ .•i-~. 1., t's-:., ..:y "' :-: . · .. lhe D1stnct Cour1.: should examine. It ::; -i!!'~si ·::::: ie~ision that the ·appl;cant has filed the present .~~7-::ut:t-; ·:ii- rc;;<-.:~:>r.. The applicant's main ground is that, ~fter Kabuta SR):·~ ':,!,;;:~3~C!l ~: ~-_3th S~ptember· 2005 pronouncing that the Court has no Jt.:ri~~:~tr; ·'.:o e:·C::tt}n ari appeal against the Primary Court's decision in a . ::i!1d ~Ji~er· (wi1:c_h decision still stands), it would be improper and u:1lzv{u'j:fo_r the. :;.:.2t~:::t Court ·to 'again sit ~n appeal against the Prim~ry Ccu1;'~ rci~icn: . . In cZ~i,_:~ . t.,;s app. i:cation, the r~spondent's advocates strongly argued that ther:s~t:tt: Cc:.Jrt was the proper Court to institute an appeal against · the, ~eai·;::?_n_ of ~i:'Z!- :(aw~

Primary Court _an~ sought to impeach Kabuta ' SR~'s • ' . c-1s10n -· oy zrguing that the D1stnct Court does possess the • • # jurisoi::t~,' ~ to en~erta1n his client's appeal. In h,is ·!J)r:iissi(ms, rE!$pondent's counsel posed the question as to what ··i sh::uid. ~r.~e~ai:rc .dorie With the· decision of the Kawe Primary Court which -a~ :2.~e~~,:~:-om ·the Ward Tribunal, whi~h, in his view, it had no Junsd1Cti,:!;_n t() determ:ne. Colinsel wrote the following: \, . . . f' . . . . . t . . 3/From Office/JudiCr/J~hn Mnllya v Moses Benjamin (Rg June 2014) 3 .t . ,J ·i·' ' ,· .... t· -1: • • I . . • ·. . . .. Ar .·., ''Then _unknown to the Respondent's counsei t:'-!:;t th2rc b.lfd bee:1 an .. ap~e~_j ~lready'.tjecided., the ·respondent ~cugh.t for exte~ ;on.,:~iti.me · . vvithin which to .file. ~l'l appeal agat~s: ·~;7e c!eci_s'.-c:1 (?f :·,¢ ·?rim~ry Court of Kc;:1w~ in the Dist_ri<::t Court ~f Kir.ondcnl s.J th- 1.t!ie same --could . . . . be quashed . .for r want , of jurisdictior; i..;po:,• being granted." The respondent thus· concedes that there has been an &;Jpe~! "alre~ciy .. · deci~ed" by the Dist_rict Court from the d~cisicn of the K~te ?rimary . .· Cou~. Do these circumstances justify Ruteha~1gwa RM's decis!~p to grant extension of time so that a second appeal, t!S -it were, can ~f fEed ar.d entertained by the s_ame Court? Is the. fact the respondent's :fu;-.se! did not

know, when filing the applicatipn, that tr.e Cistrict Co·Jrt ,~ready and conclusively dealt with an· ea.rller. appeal ar.c ru(-:;d -!:~at f~~ :1ad no ; ~ . jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, ju~t:~, ;J · s-2c'Jn:I a;;dec:.I to th-e• ,,i:. ~me~u~ ~ ... j '.( . With all due respect, I am. unable to accep~ :~~:2 ·nrg;.i:-.~2.-:·: j~t'·~:.\,::19 -~:;.e respondent's position. The· remedy for the i'c;,;~t;:~r-.!;.~ :=,::::;1¢1.•~-~ to fl;[: ·another appeal ·1n . the same Court I but to ch,;,, • ,c,.. •·'l·n...,-:i 1 ,.,-........ ,•~·..t.:.. ,:--,. - - ('\(-.: c---l",~ .-i.- .. ► .-1~-:s:o""' :"(;;Jr-;_~ °\... !!,,.,,,, f ~ I • -I -~ on appeal or revision in this Court (subject,. ~( c:::.:.;~£ct ·.:~ .,~;"'!& ::vi : :.:; . limitation), or by way ·of review in the Dist:;;c~ C~t:;·;.. :t '.: 1&/ tc· ,::::f; · .r / another appeal, while the ea~lier decision, ;~.:-a.,;j~mcing t~~:: _!lhe c:~:tiid Court has no jurisdiction, still stands. Furth~rr.~i.~(:::, ever. t:::!;;h Kabl!ta SRM did not dismiss the appeal but simply strus: i~ o~t, tr,e c~:j~mst~mc~s and the nature of the decision are such tha:: t~~ ~-:.~rr.edy coul ::ic: be to ,.~ sRis1 re-institute the appeal as the respondent . intends tc do. ·~ :· · . ~ ~~ ~ther words, whatever the merits or demerits of Ka'.:Juta decision, and so long as that decision still subsists, tt:e Klnondoni Disr -Court is functus officio in respect of

any appeal ag~:nst Kawe Prim ;y Co:1ri:'s . I decision in Civil Case No. 67 of 2004. It cannct cnce ::gain sit . entertain another appeal. The remedy, if any, must l:e e;se<N'.,~re. 3/From Office/Judiciary/John Mallya ,, Moses Benjamin (Rg June 2014) 4 ... \ ~ · Gi\i~n t.·l'.: fore_goir.g fhd:ngs, ~ hold that \t wa~ not proper _for ~~tehangwa RM ·w· 1?nt exte~sic:1 of time· arid allow the respondent to fi!e another .. costs. ·r appeal.J;c~o~ding:y,· .~:;ie appHcatlon for re_Visi6-~ is hereby g~~n-ted witt, proceedings :n Misc. Civil .Case No. 29 of 2001, ·ruling and ~:-ders ~."_:-~::itehc:~£W·~- ~;'vl;. given on _18.th _August 20i_l.. a~e ~e:e_b~·-quashe~ end set.=-t-'.C€. . · .· · . · - . · DATE') f_;,\R 3?:J\'IM thi5 E5 26th day of June, ;Oi4. FauzTwaib Judge ' ; 3/from Office/Judi'.'= ·iJohn Mallya v Moses Denjami~ (Rg June iDl4) t , . . 5 .'·I·.